Exposure Levels and Determinants of Softwood Dust Exposures in BC Lumber Mills, 1981–1997
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Measurements of personal exposure to wood dust (n = 1237) collected by the Workers' Compensation Board of British Columbia, Canada, over the period 1981-1997 were used to construct an empirical model to identify broad determinants of softwood dust exposure. Potential determinants of exposure examined included species of tree processed; company; geographic location of lumber mill; department; job title; calendar year; and production factors such as board feet of lumber produced per year. A determinants of exposure model was built using multiple linear regression. Nested within this compliance database was a subset of samples collected for a research study. These enabled the authors to explore whether differences in exposure measurements can in part be explained by sampling strategy (research versus compliance). Potential differences were examined by examining differences in means for each job title, stratified by sampling strategy; and by offering "sampling strategy" as a categorical predictor variable to the empirical model. Multiple linear regressions revealed the most important determinants of increased wood dust exposure to be mill location away from the coast, earlier calendar year, and indoor jobs. The empirical model had an R2 of 0.39 and a predictive range from 0.02 to 25.45 mg/m3. Research and compliance sampling strategies showed no difference in mean exposure and distribution in the empirical model (p < 0.05), suggesting that regulatory exposure databases may be of utility for exposure assessment in epidemiology. This research indicates that compliance-sampling strategies do not result in an overestimation of mean exposure levels within jobs, but they do focus on a biased sample of jobs-those most highly exposed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it